UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS 

LIBRARY 

Class 

Book 

Volume 

33\,2>e 

V  x 

Ja  09-20M 

\ 

THE  STORY  OF  THE  STRIKE 


AN  EXPLANATION  OF 
THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF 
LAWLESSNESS  OUT  OF 
A  LABOR 


ISSUE 


C 


,v 


i 


0 


This  Article  appeared  in  the  St  Louis  Mirror 
of  June  XI V.,  M  CM}  That  edition  of  the  paper 
was  exhausted  in  two  days ,  Demand  Jor  the 
article  has  caused  its  reproduction  in  this  form. 
Its  only  merit  is  that  it  is  the  only  fair  representa¬ 
tion  by  any  publication  of  the  conditions  which  have 
kept  St.  Louis  unpleasantly  before  the  country 
during  six  weeks  of  turmoil  and  tragedy. 


THE  STORY  OF  THE  STRIKE. 


^SJL^SJL 


THE  strike  in  St.  Louis  has  but  one  merit.  It  is  a 
big  thing  and  it  implies  a  big  town.  When  that 
has  been  said  all  has  been  said. 

The  detail  story  of  the  strike,  however,  is  not  creditable 
to  the  city,  or  to  anyone  in  authority  in  the  city,  or  in  the 
State  of  Missouri. 

In  the  first  place  the  demands  made  by  the  employes  of 
the  road  were  extravagant  and  tyrannical.  The  employes 
practically  demanded  the  right  to  employ  or  discharge  all 
the  servants  of  the  company,  on  the  cars  or  in  the  power 
houses.  There  was  no  question  whatever  concerning 
wages. 

It  is  a  matter  of  fact  that,  of  the  more  than  3,000  em¬ 
ployes,  who  made  a  demand  that  no  self-respecting  man 
could  accede  to,  not  four  men  in  ten  approved  the  strike. 
The  strike  was  brought  on  by  Mr.  W.  D.  Mahon,  whose 
business  it  is  to  make  strikes.  The  men  in  the  street 
railway  Union  voted  to  strike,  simply  because  each  was 
afraid  that  a  vote  against  a  strike  would  make  him  tabu  by 
the  others. 

The  Transit  Company  employed  men  to  take  the  place 
of  the  strikers.  Sympathizers  with  the  strikers,  and,  in 


1 


some  instances,  strikers  themselves,  have  blown  up  cars 
and  conduits,  cut  the  wires,  shot,  stoned,  slugged  and 
maltreated  the  new  employes  and  passengers,  stripped 
women  naked  in  the  streets  for  riding  in  the  cars,  obstruct¬ 
ed  the  tracks  and  assassinated  policemen. 

J* 


The  strike  has  degenerated  into  a  riot,  and  the  riot  is 
spread  more  or  less  over  the  entire  city.  Business  has 
been  paralyzed  in  every  line.  Many  people  have  been 
forced  to  leave  the  city.  Thousands  have  been  deterred 
from  coming  here.  Citizens  have  been  terrorized.  In 
some  parts  of  the  city  the  necessaries  of  life  are  riot  sold' 

to  people  who  patronize  the  cars,  Anarchy  prevails,  to  all 

u. 

intents  and  purposes. 

More  men  have  been  killed  and  wounded  during  the 
strike  than  in  most  of  the  lesser  battles  in  the  Philippines. 
The  city  is  disgraced  before  this  country  and- the  world,  as 
a  community  incapable  of  maintaining  Law  and  Order. 
Prominent  citizens  are  under  arms  shooting  down  rioting 
strikers.  The  situation,  in  an  American  city  of  700,000 
people,  has  not  been  duplicated  save  on  four  or  five 
occasions,  in  the  draft  riot,  in  New  York,  the  Baltimore 
riot,  the  Cincinnati  Berners  riot  and  the  New  Orleans 
lynching  of  the  Mafia.  The  state  of  anarchy,  of  a  more  or 
less  acute  order,  has  existed  for  five  weeks.  And,  writing 
2 


on  April  12th,  the  indications  are  that  the  situation  will 
grow  worse  before  it  grows  better. 

Why  does  such  a  condition  exist  in  a  city  that  has 
always  borne  an  excellent  reputation  for  order,  a  city, 
indeed,  which  has  been  supposed  to  be  incapable  of  any 
excitement,  because  of  its  intense  lassitudinous  conserva¬ 
tism? 

Jt 

Conditions  exist  because  of  bad  government.  The 
Transit  Company,  a  consolidation  of  all  the  street  railways 
of  the  city,  except  one,  is  a  Trust.  The  Trust  was  created 
by  the  Democratic  Legislature  and  approved  by  the  Demo¬ 
cratic  Governor.  That  Trust  took  about  $30,000,000  of 
actual  property  and  watered  it  up  to  $90,000,000,  and  the 
capitalists  in  it  have  pocketed  big  profits  on  the  deal.  That 
Trust  was  authorized  by  Democratic  politicians  elected  upon 
a  rabid  anti-trust  platform.  It  was  passed  by  buying  legis¬ 
lators.  It  was  signed  by  the  Governor  only  after  such 
maneuvres  as  indicated  that  some  one  got  a  “large  wad  of 
money”  for  securing  the  signature.  The  signature  was 
said  to  have  cost  $50,000. 

Furthermore,  the  Trust  consolidation  was  accomplished 
through  a  dicker  whereby  the  Trust  lobbyists  secured  votes 
for  a  measure  enabling  an  enormous  increase  of  the  police 
force  and  an  enormous  increase  of  the  police  pay.  The 
Trust  passed  the  bill  to  enable  the  Democrats  to  turn  the 


St.  Louis  police  force  into  a  machine.  The  Democrats 
passed  the  Trust  bill  in  return.  The  people  of  the  City  of 
St.  Louis  had  no  voice  in  the  making  of  the  law  which 
created  the  Trust.  The  people  of  St.  Louis  had  no  voice 
in  the  making  of  the  law  which  taxed  them  $600,000  per 
year  extra  for  a  police  force.  The  police  force  membership 
was  enrolled  in  the  Jefferson  Club  as  a  sort  of  Tammany 
Hall.  The  Democrats,  denouncing  trusts,  organized  the 
Railway  Trust.  Then  the  Railway  Trust  helped  the 
Democrats  organize  the  Jefferson  Club  Police  Force  Trust, 
and  finally  the  Railway  Trust  helped  the  Democrats  pass  a 
law  similar  to  the  Goebel  law  in  Kentucky  to  disfranchise 
the  majority  party  in  St.  Louis  and  put  the  election  machin¬ 
ery  irrevocably  in  the  hands  of  the  minority. 

& 

As  soon  as  all  the  street  railways  were  consolidated  into 
a  Trust  it  was  inevitable  that  there  would  be  a  strike.  The 
Trust  threatened  the  usual  economies.  The  employes 
began  to  organize.  The  men  of  the  different  roads,  there¬ 
tofore  loyal  to  the  heads  of  the  different  roads,  saw  that 
they  were  made  the  servants  of  one  gigantic  combination  of 
capitalists.  If  capitalists  could  combine,  why  not  labor?  If 
the  capitalists  could  tie  up  the  whole  city  in  unescapable 
coils  of  rail  and  prevent  the  construction  of  competing 
lines,  why  could  not  the  employes  combine  to  protect  their 
own  interests  and,  if  necessary,  tie  up  the  capitalists?  A 
4 


strike  was  begun  early  in  the  year,  but  the  President  of  the 
Jefferson  Club  effected  a  settlement.  That  settlement  gave 
him  great  fame  among  the  workingmen.  It  was  the  thing 
that  was  going  to  elect  him  World’s  Fair  Mayor  of  St. 
Louis. 

The  Transit  Company,  after  accepting  the  settlement, 
set  to  work  to  weed  out  the  men  who  had  been  conspicuous 
in  organizing  the  employes — at  least  the  street  railway 
men’s  Union  charges  such  action  against  the  Company. 
Besides,  Mr.  Baumhoff,  the  general  superintendent,  was 
understood  to  be  desirous  of  getting  new  men,  and  in 
particular  of  getting  rid  of  all  employes  professing  a  certain 
religious  faith.  To  tell  the  truth,  the  men’s  main  grievance 
is  Baumhoff.  He  assumed  general  superintendency 
after  the  first  threatened  strike  was  averted  and 

he,  it  is  claimed,  broke  faith  with  the  Union. 

The  street  railway  union,  the  vast  majority  of  its  member¬ 
ship  being  opposed  to  a  strike,  acting  under  the  instigation 
of  an  outsider,  not  an  employe  of  any  St.  Louis  road,  Mr. 
W.  D.  Mahon,  promptly  made  a  demand  that  the  Transit 
—  Company  employ  none  but  Union  men,  that  it  suspend 
from  its  service  any  or  all  men  suspended  from  the  Union, 
that  the  Company  suspend  or  discharge  no  man  or  men 
without  submitting  the  action  to  the  Union.  The  Company 
refused  to  accept  the  terms  and  the  strike  was  on.  The 
Labor  Trust  was  pitted  against  the  Capital  Trust.  And  the 


5 


chief  sufferers  were  people  identified  with  neither  Trust, 
the  traveling  public,  the  retail  stores,  the  merchants  gener¬ 
ally.  The  Company  put  new  men  on  the  cars  to  run  them. 
Then  began  the  lawlessness.  Men  were  shot  and  assaulted. 
Property  belonging  to  the  Company  was  destroyed.  Women 
were  denuded. 

The  police  did  not  do  their  duty  on  the  first  days  of  the 
strike.  They  did  not  arrest  men  for  assailing  the  Com¬ 
pany^  new  employes.  They  did  not  disperse  mobs.  They 
did  not  touch  wire-cutters  or  track-obstructors.  The 

i 

President  of  the  Police  Board,  instead  of  enforcing  the  law, 
came  forward  to  arbitrate  matters  for  the  strikers.  He 
appeared  before  the  officers  of  the  Transit  Company  as  a 
special  pleader  for  the  strikers.  He  published  statements 
in  the  papers  eulogizing  the  fine  qualities  of  the  strike  lead¬ 
ers.  The  lawless  element  took  their  cue  therefrom.  Was 
not  the  President  of  the  Police  Board  also  President  of  the 
Jefferson  Club?  With  the  head  of  the  police  force  with 
them  as  their  special  pleader,  might  they  not  do  as  they 
pleased?  With  the  President  of  the  Jefferson  Club  pleading 
for  them,  might  they  not  assume  that  the  Transit  Company 
would  surrender  its  contention  rather  than  incur  the  enmity 
of  an  organization  that  had  “fixed  things”  to  get  control  of 
municipal  affairs?  With  the  President  of  the  Jefferson 
Club  on  their  side,  might  not  the  strikers  know  that  he 


would  do  nothing  against  their  sympathizers  that  would 
lose  him  votes?  In  the  earlier  days  of  the  strike,  had  not 
the  rioters  and  obstructionists  seen  that  the  police  only 
made  a  pretense  of  protecting  the  Company’s  new 
employes  and  property?  Is  it  any  wonder  that. the  lawless 
elements  grew  more  bold  in  their  actions  against  the  Com¬ 
pany’s  men  and  property? 

S 

The  general  public,  at  first,  simply  shrugged  its 
shoulders  over  the  situation.  The  public  knew  that  the 
Railway  Trust  had  been  organized  by  bribery  and  fraud  and 
that  the  organization  had  netted  the  projectors  millions  upon 
millions  of  dollars.  The  public  knew  that  the  millions 
were  represented  chiefly  by  franchises  for  which  the  com¬ 
panies  consolidating  had  paid  little  or  nothing,  that  the 
wealth  the  capitalists  were  pocketing  was  chiefly  founded 
upon  public  property,  that  the  public  service  under  the 
Trust  dispensation  was  atrocious,  that  the  indications  wtre 
that  many  employes  were  discharged,  that  the  Trust 
had  control  of  the  organizations  of  both  political  parties  in 
the  city,  and  that  the  Trust  could  take  care  of  itself.  The 
public  at  large  was  simply  disgusted  at  the  politics  which 
•r  denounced  Trusts  and  organized  one,  at  the  politics  which 
uses  the  Trusts  money  and  brains  to  jam  through  an 
infamous  election  bill  and  a  police  bill  to  transform  the 
police  force  into  a  political  machine.  The  public  became 


7 


further  disgusted  when  it  became  evident  that  the  politi¬ 
cians  were  playing  the  strike  for  their  own  benefit. 
President  Hawes  was  trying  to  pose  as  the  friend  of  the 
strikers  and  at  the  same  time  pretending  to  protect  the 
interest  of  the  Railway  Trust.  He  had  fallen  between 
two  stools,  as  a  result  of  his  attempt  to  straddle  the  issue. 

The  police  force  was  increased  under  an  emergency  call, 
but  the  increase  did  not  diminish  rioting.  The  slugging 
and  shooting  and  stripping  became  more  general.  A  cry 
went  up  for  the  militia.  The  shrimp  Governor  said  nay.  He 
said  that  certain  politicians  opposed  to  him  were  fomenting 
disorder,  in  order  to  defeat  his  partisans  here  at  the 
primaries.  He  implied  that  his  enemies  were  prolonging 
the  strike  in  order  to  make  his  lieutenant,  Mr.  Hawes, 
proceed  against  the  strikers,  and  thereby  lose  votes.  Also 
his  factional  enemies  were  trying  to  bring  about  a  condition 
that  would  force  him  to  call  out  the  militia.  If  he  called 
~~  out  the  militia  it  would  hurt  him  with  the  labor  vote.  It 
would  show  that  he  still  believed  in  “Gatling  guns  against 
Debs  anarchists,”  as  he  said  in  a  letter  to  the  MIRROR  in 
1894.  Then  along  came  a  primary  election  and  every 
policeman  was  taken  from  duty  in  protecting  cars  and 
passengers  to  serve  at  the  polls,  for  the  policemen  were  all 
members  of  the  Jefferson  Club,  and  if  they  were  not  on 
hand  at  the  primaries  the  enemies  of  Hawes  and  Stephens 
would  carry  the  day.  Then  Mr.  Hawes  went  to  Kansas 


8 


City,  as  President  of  the  Jefferson  Club,  to  attend  a  con¬ 
vention.  That  left  the  Police  Department  without  a  head, 
for  the  Chief  of  Police  had  been,  and  now  is,  under  the 
orders  of  the  President  of  the  Board  of  Police  Commis¬ 
sioners  and  the  Jefferson  Club.  The  lawlessness  might 
continue  uninterrupted  for  all  anyone  cared,  so  long  as  the 
political  interests  of  Mr.  Governor  Stephens  were  not 
neglected. 

Then  ex-Governor  Stone,  another  Democratic  leader, 
came  forward.  A  notorious  railway  lobbyist  had  exposed 
Stone,  who  was  fighting  the  lobby  in  politics,  as  a  gum¬ 
shoe  lobbyist  who  “sucked  eggs  but  hid  the  shells. 11  It  was 
necessary  that  Stone  should  be  brought  to  the  front,  as  the 
friend  of  the  workingman,  for  he  is  National  Committee¬ 
man  for  Missouri.  A  Citizens  Committee  had  been  formed 
with  a  view  to  arbitrating  the  trouble  between  the  Company 
and  the  strikers.  That  Citizens  Committee  had  succeeded  in 
getting  the  company  to  agree  to  take  back  1,000  employes 
at  once,  500  later,  and  as  many  more  as  might  be  found 
available, provided  that  none  of  the  men  who  had  been  guilty 
of  lawless  acts  should  be  reinstated.  The  company  agreed 
to  make  no  distinction  in  future  against  Union  men.  The 
company  agreed,  in  future,  to  arbitrate  all  its  differences 
with  its  employes.  This  proposition,  under  all  the  circum¬ 
stances,  was  a  surrender  by  the  Company  to  the  employest  an 


9 


agreement  to  recognize  the  Union ,  a  step  toward  the  gradual 
re-employment  of  the  greater  number  oj  the  strikers ,  a  con¬ 
siderable  recession  from  the  original  declarations  of  the  Company 
that  it  would  not  deal  with  the  Union  at  all.  When  the  Citizens 
Committee  had  secured  this  much  from  the  Company,  it  was 
understood  that  the  Grievance  Committee  of  the  Union 
would  accept  it.  Then  appeared  Governor  Stone  to  make 
a  political  play.  He  wouldn’t  deal  with  the  Citizens  Com¬ 
mittee.  He  waved  that  body  out  of  the  affair  altogether. 
Why?  Because  it  the  strikers  accepted  the  terms  it  would 
be  the  Citizens  Committee  that  would  get  the  credit  for 
settling  the  strike,  and  not  ex-Governor  William  J.  Stone, 
who  desired  the  kudos  that  it  might  aid  him  in  his  cam¬ 
paign  for  selection  as  delegate-at-large  to  the  National 
Democratic  Convention,  that  it  might  obliterate  from  the 
minds  of  the  masses  the  exposure  of  the  fact  that  he,  the 
great  anti-railroad  and  anti-trust,  anti-lobbyist  agitator, 
rode  on  railroad  passes  while  agitating  against  railroads, 
worked  in  the  Legislature  for  Trusts,  and  lobbied  secretly 
while  fighting  the  lobby.  Stone  had  his  way.  The  Citizens 
Committee  disappeared  from  view.  The  Transit  Company 
sent  its  proposal  to  the  Governor  and  that  proposal  was  lost 
for  a  day  and  a  half.  The  strikers  did  not  receive  the  pro¬ 
posal  in  time.  When  it  came  before  them,  belated,  the 
Company  had  employed  more  non-Union  men  and  could 
not  discharge  them  to  make  room  for  the  1,500  men  it 
10 


agreed  to  re-employ.  Why  did  the  Company’s  proposal  fail 
to  reach  the  strikers?  If  it  had  reached  them  the  strike 
would  have  been  settled.  I  shall  not  state  the  explanation 
rumored  about  town  to  account  for  the  failure  to  settle 
the  strike  on  the  proposal  which  got  side-tracked  in  ex- 
Governor  Stone’s  office.  The  ex-Governor’s  explanation  is 
vague  and  confused  and  confusing.  The  salient  fact  is, 
that  the  proposal  went  astray,  and,  as  a  result,  the 
negotiations  for  a  settlement  of  the  strike  were  declared 
“off.” 

The  Mayor  of  St.  Louis,  when  the  strike  began, crawled 
into  his  hole  and  pulled  the  hole  in  after  him.  An  ex-officio 
member  of  the  Police  Board,  he  did  not  attend  its  meetings. 
He  is  a  Republican.  The  Board  is  Democratic  as  to  all  the 
other  members.  The  Mayor  didn’t  want  to  be  present  and 
vote  to  use  the  police  against  strikers.  At  the  same  time 
he  wanted  to  make  it  clear  that  he  was  not  in  any  way  re¬ 
sponsible  for  the  failure  of  the  Board  to  maintain  the  peace. 
And,  anyhow,  what  could  he,  a  minority  of  one,  do  against 
the  other  four  members  of  the  Board,  all  Democrats?  He 
“unloaded”  on  his  associates  quite  cleverly,  but,  in  doing 
so,  he  evaded  his  plain  duty  as  a  city  and  quasi  State  officer. 
He  enacted  a  grand  “jolly”  for  the  benefit  of  the  mob,  and 
also  for  the  benefit  of  the  Law  and  Order  element.  He 
made  no  apoeal  for  the  Law  and  Order,  however.  He  said 


11 


nothing.  If  the  police  earned  execration  for  assisting  the 
rioters  masquerading  as  workingmen,  the  Mayor  was  not 
responsible.  If  the  police  earned  execration  for  not  sup¬ 
pressing  riot,  he  could  not  be  blamed,  for  he  was  only  one 
man  against  four.  But  the  fine  dodge  has  not  worked. 
The  public  is  aware  of  Mr.  Ziegenhein.  It  knows  him  for 
a  tricky  coward,  for  a  selfish  and  sneaking  schemer,  for  a 
man  who  prefers  to  permit  disorder  rather  than  to  imperil 
his  politicial  chances  by  doing  his  plain  duty.  As  Mayor 
of  the  city  he  did  not  even  have  the  gumption  to  issue  a 
peace  proclamation,  until  riot  had  been  checked  by  a 
volley  of  “buck.”  He  poses  now  as  the  man  who  vetoed 
the  city  ordinance  which  created  the  railway  franchise 
under  which  the  big  consolidation  was  effected.  But  the 
ordinance  he  vetoed  was  passed  over  his  head,  and  the 
public  well  knows  that,  if  he  had  wanted  to  do  so,  he  had 
the  power  to  prevent  the  passage  over  his  veto.  The  Mayor 
of  St.  Louis  has  not  been  in  evidence  since  the  present  tur¬ 
bulence  began.  He  has  let  things  drift,  hoping  that  all 
the  evil  political  results  would  fall  upon  the  party  opposed 
to  his  own.  He  has  made  no  attempt,  as  head  of  the  City 
Government,  to  suppress  the  disorder.  He  claims  that  the 
duty  devolved  upon  the  State  o  fficials,  but  he  is  a  member 
of  the  Board  of  Police  Commissioners,  established  by  the 
State,  and  he  has  not  done  his  duty  as  a  Police  Commis¬ 
sioner.  The  Mayor  of  St.  Louis  is  simply  an  unspeakable 
12 


dodger,  demagogue  and  clown,  and  is  as  responsible  as  the 
Democratic  State  officers,  to  a  large  extent,  for  the  state  of 
civil  war  which  exists  in  this  community. 

Under  the  law  the  Police  Board  has  authority  to  com¬ 
mand  the  Sheriff’s  assistance  to  put  down  disorder.  The 
Police  Board  is  Democratic.  The  Sheriff  is  a  Republican. 
Here  was  a  chance  to  “unload”  responsibility  on  the 
Sheriff.  He  was  ordered  to  assist  with  a  posse  comitatus . 
The  Sheriff  responded.  The  posse  comitatus  was  sum¬ 
moned.  There  are  about  sixteen  hundred  men  serving  on 
the  posse.  The  Sheriff  has  got  that  many  men  to  serve. 
The  Police  Board  couldn’t  get  500  men  extra  to  serve. 
The  Sheriff  has  got  in  his  service  some  of  the  very  best 
citizens  in  town,  in  fact,  the  greater  number  of  his  appoint¬ 
ees  are  men  who  have  no  interest  in  anything  but  the  pre¬ 
vention  of  riot.  The  posse  has  done  some  shooting.  The 
mobocrats  are  loudly  vocal  in  denunciation  thereof.  Now 
comes  the  political  play  in  evidence.  The  workingman 
was  shot  down  like  a  dog.  Who  did  it?  The  Police  Board 
is  ready  with  its  cry,  “We  didn’t  doit.  It  was  done  by 
the  Sheriff.  The  Sheriff  is  a  Republican.  We  are  Demo¬ 
crats.  We  are  not  in  favor  of  slaughtering  the  working¬ 
man  simply  for  demanding  an  amelioration  of  his  condi¬ 
tion.”  This  is  the  way  the  Democrats  “unload”  on  the 


13 


one  man  who  did  his  duty  when  called  upon.  In  “unload¬ 
ing”  the  responsibility  for  the  killings  by  the  posse ,  the 
Police  Board  plainly  lies.  The  Sheriff  is  serving  under  the 
Police  Board.  The  Police  Board  is  willing  to  call  upon 
the  Sheriff  to  kill  people,  but  it  evades  the  responsibility  of 
putting  the  riot  guns  in  the  hands  of  the  Sheriff’s  deputies. 
The  Police  Board  dodges  its  responsibility  and  makes  its 
play  to  the  mob  vote,  but  none  the  less  the  Police  Board 
has  killed  men  for  the  Transit  Company.  And  why 
shouldn’t  the  Police  Board  kill  men  for  the  Transit  Com¬ 
pany,  for  it  is  rumored  about  town  that  one  or  more  mem¬ 
bers  of  the  police  Board  are  “carried”  by  the  Transit 
Company  management  on  the  books  of  the  concern  for 
substantially  large  subscriptions  to  the  bonds  and  stock  both 
of  the  St.  Louis  Transit  Company  and  the  United  Railway 
Company.  The  story  is  generally  current  that  certain 
members  of  the  Police  Board  were  “fixed  for  life”  in  con¬ 
sideration  of  their  services  in  getting  the  Trust  bill  through 
the  Legislature.  It  is,  therefore,  very  probable  that  the 
Police  Board,  while  posing  as  sympathetic  with  the  strikers 
is,  in  fact,  financially  interested  in  the  company,  and,  in  so 
far  as  it  can  do  so,  is  “knifing”  the  strikers  while  pretend¬ 
ing  to  help  them.  The  Police  Board  member  or  members 
who  were  “fixed”  by  the  Transit  Company  are  serving  the 
Company  by  ordering  out  the  posse  comitatus ,  and,  at  the 
same  time,  fooling  the  friends  of  organized  labor,  by  de- 
14 


nouncing  or  favoring  the  denunciation  of  the  posse  men 
who  have  shot  the  strikers. 

The  writer  of  this  article  was  in  the  posse  barracks, 
Sunday  afternoon,  when  the  posse  killed  four  men.  The 
railway  men  undoubtedly  precipitated  the  trouble.  They 
jeered  the  posse  guard  in  front  of  the  barracks.  They  at¬ 
tempted  to  pull  a  conductor  off  a  car  that  was  passing. 
Several  of  them  resisted  attempts  to  arrest  them.  A  shot 
was  fired,  stones  were  thrown.  Then  the  posse  began 
pumping  buckshot  at  the  strikers.  The  result  was  deplor¬ 
able,  but  it  was  natural.  The  police,  if  they  had  done  their 
duty,  would  not  have  permitted  strikers,  returning  from  a 
picnic,  in  the  present  state  of  public  unrest,  to  pass  by  the 
posse  barracks.  The  leaders  of  the  parade  should  not  have 
led  the  men  past  the  barracks  to  jeer  at  the  posse .  The 
parade  might  as  well  have  taken  another  route.  It  was 
sheer  idiocy  of  bravado  that  brought  the  strikers  and  the 
vosse  together.  The  strikers  appeared  to  seek  out  the 
posse,  not  the  posse  the  strikers.  The  police  who  did  not 
deflect  the  parade,  and  the  leaders  who  insisted  on  a  dem¬ 
onstration  before  the  barracks,  were  responsible  for  the 
death  of  three  poor  fellows,  who,  probably,  did  nothing  to 
provoke  the  shooting.  The  scene  in  the  barracks  was 
thrilling.  When  the  first  shot  was  fired,  the  writer  of  this 
article  realized  for  the  first  time,  that  “the  hunting  of  men 


15 


is  the  greatest  game  sport  in  the  world.”  The  way  the 
posse  rushed  to  its  guns,  the  sharp,  metallic,  clattering 
chorus  of  the  filling  magazines,  the  dash  for  the  street  of 
those  ready  armed,  and  the  evident  impatience  of  those  who 
were  held  back  to  fall  in  line,  showed  that  the  posse  men 
were  more  than  half  glad  “the  music  had  begun.”  But 
for  the  coolness  of  the  leaders  there  had  been  one  hundred 
men  shot  on  Washington  avenue,  instead  of  four.  The 
posse  will  shoot,  and  shoot  fast.  And  the  men  who  did  the 
shooting  are  not  “hoboes,”  or  “escaped  convicts,”  or 
“tramps  willing  to  do  anything  at  $2  per  day,”  or  “scabs.” 
They  are  business  and  professional  men  of  standing  in  the 
community.  Some  of  them  had  gotten  the  men  at  whom 
they  shot  the  places  with  the  railway  company  which  they 
had  given  up  to  strike.  Much  as  one  might  approve  of 
stern  suppression  of  violence  deliberately  perpetrated  before 
the  eyes  of  men  sworn  and  armed  to  prevent  it,  it  was 
impossible  to  fail  to  surrender  to  a  surge  of  pity  for  the  poor 
fellows  brought  into  the  barracks,  soaked  in  rain,  pale  and 
trembling,  in  their  railway  uniforms.  They  were  not 
criminals.  They  felt  that  they  were  being  outraged  by 
janizaries  of  capital  for  doing  no  more  than  demanding 
their  rights.  Not  one  of  them  arrested  would  ever  stand  a 
show  of  getting  back  his  place.  Many  of  them  had  fami¬ 
lies  that  might  starve  as  a  result  of  the  strike.  But  when 
the  prisoners  were  searched,  a  dozen  revolvers,  many  wire- 
16 


cutters  and  brass  “knucks”  were  found  in  their  pockets. 
They  were  all  strikers,  not  “outsiders. ”  And  the  three 
dead  men  were  a  ghastly  testimony  to  the  fatuity  of 
their  leaders  and  the  lack  of  foresight  upon  the  part  of 
the  Mayor  and  the  police  in  permitting  a  parade  past  the 
posse  barracks. 

The  disgrace,  the  tragedy,  the  horror  of  the  situation  in 
St.  Louis  is  all  due  to  politics.  Politics  formed  the  Trust. 
Politics  has  kept  the  police  from  strong  measures  of  re¬ 
pression.  Politics  postponed  the  resistance  of  disorder  till 
too  late  an  hour.  Politics  prevented  a  settlement  of  the 
strike  upon  a  reasonable  basis.  Politics  forced  private  citi¬ 
zens  to  slay  workingmen.  Politics  induced  the  strike, 
through  the  impression  that  the  politicians  in  power  would 
either  help  the  strikers,  by  refusing  to  protect  the  cars,  or 
would  force  the  Company,  in  consideration  of  favors  in 
future  to  be  granted  or  refused,  to  accept  terms.  Politics 
made  the  men  who  tried  to  “arbitrate”  for  the  strikers,  dc 
nothing  but  pose  as  advocates  of  the  strike.  Mr.  Hawes, 
as  “arbitrator,”  was  a  strike  advocate,  when  he  should 
have  been  enforcing  the  law.  Ex-Governor  Stone  ob¬ 
structed  the  settlement  of  the  strike  at  the  moment  when 
settlement  was  near.  And  W.  D.  Mahon,  the  rank  out¬ 
sider,  has  projected  himself  into  national  prominence  by 
starting  a  strike,  the  net  results  of  which,  so  far,  are  more 


17 


than  a  dozen  dead,  a  hospitalful  of  wounded,  the  outrageous 
treatment  of  women,  paralyzed  business,  and  three  thou¬ 
sand  men  out  of  employment  in  which  they  were,  until  his 
eruption  upon  the  scene,  happy  and  moderately  contented, 
save  for  the  tyranny  and  bad  faith  of  BaumhofE.  BaumhoflE, 
too,  is  in  politics,  a  Republican  boss.  The  politics  of 
the  Police  Board  has  permitted  disorder  to  grow,  instead 
of  stamping  it  out  at  first.  The  politics  of  an  ignoramus- 
smart-aleck-muddle-beaded  Mayor  has  permitted  the  Police 
Board  to  play  unlimited  politics. 

& 

But  worst  politics  of  all  politics  are  those  of  Missouri’s 
pismire  Governor.  He  is  the  man  who  made  the  Trust 
possible.  He  is  the  man  who  controls  the  Police 
Board.  He  is  the  man  who  justifies  the  withdrawal  of  the 
police  from  peace-preservation  to  run  primaries  and  puts 
his  Police  Board’s  political  duty  to  carry  primaries  and 
attend  conventions  above  the  body’s  sworn  duty  to  maintain 
the  law.  He  is  the  man  who  convinces  the  Chief  of  Police, 
after  that  official  has  called  tor  the  militia,  the  militia  is 
not  needed.  He  is  the  man  who  would  not  call  out  the 
militia  because  the  papers  and  people  of  this  city  had 
treated  him  so  badly.  He  is  the  man  who  figures  on  the 
cost  of  calling  out  the  militia,  when  the  conditions  which 
demand  the  militia  are  costing  the  law-abiding  people  of 
St.  Louis  more  money  per  day  than  the  State  of  Missouri 
18 


has  spent  upon  the  militia  in  fifteen  years.  He  is  the  man 
who  advocated  Gatling  guns  against  Debs  in  Chicago  in 
1894.  He  is  the  man  who  has  made  a  combination  to 
make  himself  and  the  State’s  greatest  Trust  lobbyist  dele¬ 
gates  to  Kansas  City  to  nominate  Mr.  Bryan.  He  is  the 
man  who  is  most  responsible,  after  W.  D.  Mahon,  for  all 
the  disorder  and  wounds  and  death  and  violation  of  women 
of  the  past  five  weeks. 

The  strike  of  the  railway  men  is  lost.  The  politicians 
lost  it  for  the  men.  The  strike  was  a  blunder,  because  it 
was  phased  upon  a  demand  that  was,  originally,  unjust. 
The  men  were  right  in  demanding  that  they  should  not  be 
discharged  for  membership  in  the  Union,  but  they  went 
too  far  in  demanding  that  the  employing  company  should 
employ  only  men  satisfactory  to  the  employes.  The 
demands  of  the  strikers  passed  the  limit  of  insistence  upon 
their  own  rights  and  invaded  the  rights  of  others  not  to  be¬ 
long  to  a  Union.  The  strike  was  a  further  mistake  in 
failing  to  accept  the  compromise  offered  by  the  Company, 
which  recognized  the  rights  of  its  men  to  belong  to  a  Union. 
The  strike  has  been  a  mistake  chiefly  because  it  has  been 
directed  by  a  man  from  outside  the  city,  having  no  relations 
with  the  Company  and  having  no  regard  for  the  interests  of 
the  old  servants  of  the  Company  who  were  coerced  into  the 
strike.  The  strike  has  hurt  the  cause  of  organized  labor. 


19 


It  was  conceived  in  extravagant  folly,  and,  through  the 
machinations  of  politicians,  it  has  been  unfortunately 
implicated,  in  the  minds  of  thinking  people,  with  the  deeds 
of  criminals.  The  man  who  started  the  strike  on  an  ex¬ 
treme  demand  is  responsible  for  much  of  the  disgraceful 
and  piteous  spectacle  of  the  past  five  weeks,  but  the  men 
who  have  failed  to  put  down  disorder  are  responsible  for 
the  transformation  of  a  strike  into  a  reign  of  lawlessness. 
But  be  it  not  forgotten  that  the  Company  broke  faith  with 
the  men,  after  agreeing  not  to  discriminate  against  Union 
members,  by  discharging  organizers. 

While  the  strike  was  a  mistake,  and  its  continuance 
after  the  company’s  second  practical  recognition  of 
the  Union  was  a  blunder  little  short  of  a  crime,  the  situa¬ 
tion  is,  nevertheless,  one  for  men  who  may  not  have  sym¬ 
pathized  with  the  strikers  to  ponder  long  and  well.  Strikes 
are  not  utterly  causeless.  Popular  discontent  is  not 
altogether  a  combination  of  neurotic  disturbance  and 
vicious  unrest.  It  is  well  to  remember  that  there  are  many 
just  grievances  against  employers  of  men  in  large  num¬ 
bers,  individuals  as  well  as  corporations.  This,  therefore, 
seems  to  be  a  proper  time  to  call  the  attention  of  those  em¬ 
ploying  large  numbers  of  people,  to  the  fact,  that  many  of 
them  have  been,  and  still  are,  in  the  treatment  of  their 
servants,  even  more  selfish  and  inconsiderate  than  required 


20 


by  the  coldest  rules  for  money  getting.  Many  of  the 
workers  for  large  concerns  are  employed  as  one  would 
purchase  cattle;  that  is  to  say,  the  employer  does  not  pre¬ 
tend  to  pay  them  what  they  are  worth  to  him,  but  buys 
their  labor  as  cheap  as  he  can  force  them,  on  account  of 
their  necessities,  to  give  it.  It  is  true,  that  the  employers 
have  a  right  to  employ  men  as  cheaply  as  they  can,  and 
work  them  as  many  hours  as  possible,  and  this  does  not 
justify  the  men  in  using  violence  against  employers,  and 
much  less  does  it  excuse  the  brutal  and  cowardly  assaults 
on  men  and  woman,  during  the  past  five  weeks  in  this  city. 
It  is  well,  however,  for  those  interested  to  remember,  that 
much  of  the  injustice  to  individuals,  as  well  as  to  the  pub¬ 
lic,  has  been  made  possible  by  the  indiscriminate  creation 
of  corporations,  and  the  opportunities  thereby  given  to 
place  large  establishments  under  control  of  a  few  men,  as 
also  to  keep  large  fortunes  in  dead  hands.  It  is  well  for 
corporations  to  remember  that  they  are  artificial  persons, 
created  and  existing  by  the  sufferance  of  the  people. 
Whenever  the  people,  who,  while  they  are  conservative, 
are  also  just,  find  that  these  artificial  persons  are  creating 
artificial  conditions  to  the  detriment  of  the  masses,  they 
will  see  to  it  that  such  changes  are  made  in  the  Constitu¬ 
tion,  State,  as  well  as  National,  that  no  more  such  artificial 
persons  can  be  created,  and  that  those  existing  now  get 
exactly  what  they  are  lawfully  entitled  to  and  no  more. 

21 


This  strike  has  won  though  it  has  failed.  The  Company 
practically  recognized  the  Union  Labor  principle.  The 
proposal  recognizing  that  principle  was  futile  because  of  a 
politician’s  obfuscation.  The  men  were  betrayed  into  re¬ 
jecting  a  victory  and  choosing  a  defeat.  The  strikers  were 
identified  with  lawlessness  chiefly  through  the  incapacity  or 
chicanery  or  ambition  of  small  politicians.  The  disgrace 
of  Union  Labor,  as  of  the  city  St.  Louis  and  State  of  Mis¬ 
souri,  is  due  to  bad  government.  Bad  government  is  due  to 
the  bad  citizenship  of  good  citizens. 

The  street  railways  of  St.  Louis  will  be  unionized,  and 
that,  too,  before  long.  The  “scabs”  of  to-day  will  be  in  revolt 
against  Baumhoff, to-morrow, as  Union  men.But  when  will  St. 
Louis  and  Missouri  get  rid  of  their  Ziegenheins,  Haweses, 
Stones  and  Stephenses  and  others  who  place  party  and  per¬ 
sonal  profit  above  public  welfare?  When  will  the  people  cease 
to  elect  the  sort  of  men  who  can  be  bought  to  create  a  Railway 
Trust?  When  will  Union  Labor  cease  to  put  in  places  of 
authority,  men  like  Mahon  who  “strike”  them  out  of  em¬ 
ployment  on  absurd  demands  and  lead  them  in  excitement 
to  the  mouths  of  guns  of  posse  men?  When  will  we  all  leave 
off  politics  and  choose  our  leaders  for  character,  for  calm¬ 
ness,  for  principle,  for  common  sense? 


22 


